How does a filmmaker decide which aspect ratio to shoot in?

[Paul R Johnson]

Well, I've been using ⅔ and ⅓ sensors for years and years and never had a pro camera with autofocus and I've managed perfectly well - even shooting with the lens wide open. It's part of the standard camera operating practice. Ever watch golf, cricket or baseball on tv outside broadcasts and watched the cameraman track a ball in flight on a very long lens in perfect sharpness. Pan, tilt, zoom and focus all at the same time. In the studio, if you are a bit soft, you scan the image and if the background is sharper, you focus forward, and if the background is softer, focus back. It just needs practice.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

...years and years...

Well, Paul, that is indeed the whole point.

You've had years and years. He has not.

In my opinion he did the right thing. His hands were full enough as it is.

It amazes me how you do what you do, and I'm honored to have shooters of your caliber participate on this forum. Professionals with your level of experience lend great clout and veracity to this community. But I don't think I can do what you do. I don't have those years and years of experience. Neither does the OP.

I certainly agree with you that he could benefit greatly from practice.

[Josh Bass]

That was my mistake, I meant LARGE sensor cams. Which I think he is using. Much easier with 1/3 or 2/3 inch sensors.

I will say that if the cam is on sticks and locked down you can use markers (sticky arrows like you'd use for contracts to indicate where to sign) to mark your focus points on the lens itself, and pull at the appropriate time, but if you're handheld? Or need to follow action (two instances where you really can't look away from the image to look at your marks)? Very tough. Not saying impossible but yes, you need a lot practice. And with DOF so shallow it's very easy to over or undershoot just a bit and have a slightly soft image and look like a jackass. And you can't even always tell, even with a monitor (a small one anyway) and peaking, 'til you're home and looking at it on a larger screen.

[Brian Drysdale]

There is a long Ryan thread which covers this subject.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

That was my mistake, I meant LARGE sensor cams. Which I think he is using. Much easier with 1/3 or 2/3 inch sensors.

I will say that if the cam is on sticks and locked down you can use markers (sticky arrows like you'd use for contracts to indicate where to sign) to mark your focus points on the lens itself, and pull at the appropriate time, but if you're handheld? Or need to follow action (two instances where you really can't look away from the image to look at your marks)? Very tough. Not saying impossible but yes, you need a lot practice. And with DOF so shallow it's very easy to over or undershoot just a bit and have a slightly soft image and look like a jackass. And you can't even always tell, even with a monitor (a small one anyway) and peaking, 'til you're home and looking at it on a larger screen.

Yes I was using the Sony A7s II. On the shot where it's the two of them, the wide shot, I wanted them both in focus so I set a deep DOF. Then I did the close ups of both of them, but I was working in a hurry, and didn't change the DOF to shallow for the close ups.

However, it was said on here not to change the DOF and keep it consistent. So if I want a deep DOF to have two actors in focus in a wide shot, should I then not change it for close ups.

In the wide shot though, the male actor walks in the room and walks over to her, and it's about maybe 10 feet to her at least I think or more even. So I would have to have it in deep enough focus for 10 feet, wouldn't I?

[Brian Drysdale]

You usually pull focus for a walk into a room like that.

Stopping down can change the characteristics of the lens. DPs select lenses on how they look and this can change depending on the stop used.

You plan the lighting levels depending on the DOF you need, so the stop usually doesn't change. It's only with the greater camera sensitivity now available that you could even use f11 on an interior without blasting the subjects with light (and heat). Today, neutral density filters are used with modern cameras to obtain the wider lens apertures.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. Well because the Sony A7s II has really good qaulity ISO, I didn't need bright lights for deep DOF.

However, if I were to do what you say and shoot with a shallow DOF as I pulled focus as the guy enters the room and walks towards her, then she would be out of focus while he walked in. I kind of feel both actors should be in focus for the audience in a shot like that, unless I'm wrong?

I mean is the Citizen Kane type style with every actor in focus in a shot, really that bad of a style nowadays?

[Brian Drysdale]

If you wish to use deep focus, there's no reason why you can't, other than current fashion. It really depends on the story, although I wouldn't go to f11, setting around f5.6 or f8 at the most would usually get the best out of the lens,

How soft she is would depend on the factors given earlier in the thread, however, you may wish to have the focus on her as he enters the room or switch from him to her as he walks towards her, It depends on the story, their relationship and what is happening dramatically.

The choices are yours.

[Paul R Johnson]

this goes back to art, Ryan. Technology has given you far more choices, but you cannot write a rule book to follow, which is what you always strive for. Shot 3 has problem 201, turn to 201 in the book and apply rule. shot 4 has problem 22, and so on. You cannot work like this. Whenever people give advice, you add it to the rule book. However - every single piece of advice has a context, and you miss this.

You nearly got it here.

I kind of feel both actors should be in focus for the audience in a shot like that, unless I'm wrong?

You had it, but then added the "unless I'm wrong". You felt they should be both in focus. That's an executive decision by the film maker. YOU made the decision so go with it. Why would other people have better judgement than you? I really cannot imagine on the Citizen Kane set the man in charge wondering if he was wrong? He knew he was right. Almost certainly people on set thought he made very odd decisions, but he didn't - he had the vision.

We're very good at answering questions, but we are not always right. Perhaps technically, we are - but part of being in charge is having the courage to collect viewpoints, and then do what you think best, and not constantly double-check every decision. I work for very big production companies, and in my role make on the spot decision that have big implications. My contract essentially says make it happen, and the bosses support the decisions I make on their behalf, even when later it turns out I was wrong. you are in this position apart from you have no boss.

If you want a shot to have shallow DoF, then in your head you already know why this is. Maybe to hide the background, but probably to pull people's attention to the things in the frame you wish them to be looking at. A fully sharp image can present them on the big screen with a jumble of things to look at. Is this good? Only you know!

[Chris Hurd]

Paul's post directly above provides the best advice possible.

[Paul R Johnson]

I think I’m on a quest to get ryan to do what he thinks and not get sidetracked by second guessing. He’s probably a better film maker than me, because I always lack artistic vision. When I stand in for the director they ALWAYS pick different solutions to mine. Mine would work but theirs is usually better in the end!

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

this goes back to art, Ryan. Technology has given you far more choices, but you cannot write a rule book to follow, which is what you always strive for. Shot 3 has problem 201, turn to 201 in the book and apply rule. shot 4 has problem 22, and so on. You cannot work like this. Whenever people give advice, you add it to the rule book. However - every single piece of advice has a context, and you miss this.

You nearly got it here.
You had it, but then added the "unless I'm wrong". You felt they should be both in focus. That's an executive decision by the film maker. YOU made the decision so go with it. Why would other people have better judgement than you? I really cannot imagine on the Citizen Kane set the man in charge wondering if he was wrong? He knew he was right. Almost certainly people on set thought he made very odd decisions, but he didn't - he had the vision.

We're very good at answering questions, but we are not always right. Perhaps technically, we are - but part of being in charge is having the courage to collect viewpoints, and then do what you think best, and not constantly double-check every decision. I work for very big production companies, and in my role make on the spot decision that have big implications. My contract essentially says make it happen, and the bosses support the decisions I make on their behalf, even when later it turns out I was wrong. you are in this position apart from you have no boss.

If you want a shot to have shallow DoF, then in your head you already know why this is. Maybe to hide the background, but probably to pull people's attention to the things in the frame you wish them to be looking at. A fully sharp image can present them on the big screen with a jumble of things to look at. Is this good? Only you know!

Oh okay. Well it's just in the past, if I tried to follow my own instincts on how a shot should be, I was told that is not professional looking.

For example, in that same scene, I broke the 180 degree rule on the close up of the actress, and I had no problem doing this, but people told me it wasn't good and they said I should flip the image, so I don't cross the 180 degree line. That's why the lighting doesn't match on her close up, cause I was told to flip the image.

If I were to follow my own instincts and not go by rules, I say that for future shoots, if more than one actor are moving around a scene, I could keep them both in focus with a deep focus, but if it's just a close up, then I have a shallow DOF.

However, it was said on here before, that I maybe I should traditionally keep the DOF the same for all the shots in a scene to keep it consistent, so is that instinct of mine, not good then?

[Brian Drysdale]

Know the rules before you break them.

Crossing the line is best done for a dramatic reason, just crossing for a CU usually doesn't work that well. Directors switch the line and stay over, however, they usually don't do so when just cross cutting between characters as they chat.

The line maintains the geography of a scene, so crossing it has to be done for a reason..

The 180° Rule (And How to Break It) - YouTube

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. But what if I wanted to a scene where I am breaking the rule while cross cutting back and forth between two characters talking.

It happens in this movie scene:

Ex-Machina clip: feel bad for yourself. - YouTube

So what are they doing different that allows for it to be okay, since it is cutting back and forth in a conversation?

[Brian Drysdale]

In that scene the geography is carefully set up at the beginning. The breaking of the line is used to show the disconnect/alienation between one character and his boss. It's also reinforced by the framing, with the space behind him seeming to slowly add pressure as the free talking boss softly gives his thoughts.

So, it's been done for a reason. The switch over the line occurs when he learns that there will be a next model - the dramatic revelation of the scene. This will set in train what happens in the rest of the film.

What we don't know, looking at the completed film, are other angles that were shot at the time, the standard arrangement may have also been covered (This appears to be case with at least one shot), but during the editing this is one that was used for the above reasons.

You can't do it for the sake of it, otherwise it won't work and you end up confusing/annoying the audience. There needs to be something that carries you over the line.